House Dems urge Obama to halt gay discharges from the military
By Bryan Bender
GLOBE STAFF
WASHINGTON _ In the most vocal plea yet for the White House to take the lead in pushing for gays and lesbians to be allowed to serve openly in the military, 77 Democratic lawmakers today urged President Obama to use his executive powers to order a halt to military discharges under the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and work aggressively with Congress to pass new legislation to overturn what they describe as a discriminatory policy that harms national security.
"We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion legally possible in administering Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell until Congress repeals the law," states the letter, organized by Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Democrat of Florida. "To this end, we ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
A recent study by the Palm Center, a public policy think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, argued that Obama has the authority as commander-in-chief to suspend the gay discharge process through an executive order.
But only Congress can make a permanent change, by overturning the 1993 law that established the current policy -- which stipulates that gays and lesbians can serve in uniform only if their sexual orientation remains secret.
And so far, virtually no Republicans in the House of Representatives or Senate have expressed a willingness to overturn the law, while many conservative Democrats are also considered wary of doing so.
Obama aides have said the president still plans on acting on his campaign pledge to work for the law's repeal but have outlined a very deliberative process of study and consultation with the top military brass that could take months, if not years.
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, asked about the policy last week, made it clear that he believes it is ultimately up to the Congress to reverse it and that the administration has few options unless it repeals the law.
"Until the law is changed, our ability to change the policy is extremely limited, if not nonexistent," Gates said.
Still, those who back repeal say the nation cannot afford to wait until 2010 or 2011, contending that thousands of qualified personnel needed in a time of war have been kicked out of the military unnecessarily, including those will skills such as foreign language proficiency that are in short supply.
"...Our country's national security will continue to suffer if action is delayed," the lawmakers, including four members of the Massachusetts delegation, told Obama today.
Comment
Permalink
Email
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
About Political Intelligence
News from the Washington Bureau
Alcee Hastings is a Democrat from Florida. Fact checker???
Why not, the Marxists, I mean Democrat party are well on the way to destroying this country might as well rip up the military while they are at it.
It's about time they repeal this law. I served in the military for nearly 10 years alongside more than one soldier who happened to be gay. I know many more veterans today who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, stateside, and abroad, who were gay. Right now the military can send soldiers who are gay to war but then discharge them upon their return home. This needs to end. If they need to suspend this discriminatory law to stop other soldiers who have served admirably in this time of war from getting the boot, while we all wait around for them to change the law, then so be it. Equal rights for all soldiers and veterans!
Ha ha! That's funny. I hope. You must be joking when you compare the VERY capitalist Democrats to Marxists! Ha Ha! Things might be better if it were true, since the VERY capitalist Democrats are really just holding the line from the previous regime... um... administration.
As far as ripping the military apart--- where'd you get that? Oh--- another joke. But it's not really funny. There are some people who actually have a problem with other peoples' sexual preference. Most commonly it stems from their own private fears that they themselves might be gay.
This is hilarious!
Gay discharge!
Written by a guy named Bender!!
but in all seriousness the dems are right.
I agree with Regulas. Instead of allowing people who want eagerly to serve our military, we should continue to force people to serve 5 and 6 tours in Iraq and continue to deprive ourselves of troops who're proficient in the languages of the locals who can save the lives of troops by deciphering messages. All because people are afraid of cooties.
DADT belongs to the days of slavery when blacks were not allowed to serve their country by carrying arms.... for Obama not to recognize and support equal opportunity in our military would be a false note for him. This is 2009 not 1860!
To "Regulas": Discharging military service personnel with vital skills, such as those who can speak Arabic, harms our National security. It makes us less safe. I am staunchly opposed to terrorists who want to kill Americans, but apparently you are more interested in making things easier for those terrorists as long as you can keep some homosexuals from serving in our nation's military. That makes you unpatriotic and un-American, no matter how funny you think it is to equate Democrats with marxists.
Ending DADT will make our country safer. If you want to U.S.A. to continue losing Arabic translators because you have some bizarre objection to their sexual orientation, you are unpatriotic and need to leave this great nation NOW.
have you ever heard of discrimination. Discrimination toward or against a person of a certain group is the treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit. I'm in the military and I'm not gay but everybody has the right to not be discriminated against. Are you in the military? How do people in the military feel? How do gay people in the military feel?
By the way, there is no "Democrat" party, just like there is no "Republic" party. We're the Democratic party and the Republican party. It's these little jibes that contribute to the overall ignorance of people in our country. Is that your intention? Or have you, yourself, fallen for it?
The Associated Press reported (Jan 13, 2005) that between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi speakers because they were gay. I don't know how many have been discharged since 2004, but the progress of the war effort suggests that they could use all the translators they can get.
Sorry for the misfire on where Rep. Hastings hails from. Bryan Bender
I wonder if our mercenary troops like Blackwater, or whatever their name is today, or, Cheney's scam, Halliburton, had any gays, and did they persecute them. It seems to me that the Bushies has done enough to destroy the country. They should all move to ethicsless Texas and secede from this great country. While they are at it they should take their phallic cigar chomping drug addict Mush Limburgher with them.
Yeah, the Democrats are doing SO much worse than the previous administration... Regulas needs to get a clue.
Also, expelling useful personnel because of their sexual orientation is just stupid in a time of war when enlistment is down. Are you that dense Regulas?
@Jon -- that's correct.
-Regulas-
If the United States military is so fragile that allowing good, intelligent, and honorable gay soldiers to serve their country, fight for their freedoms at the possible risk of their lives, while also protecting your freedoms, even your pathetic life, than it deserves to fail. Not everyone is a homophobic, narrow-minded ignoramus as you have shown yourself to be. Do you realize how many countries allow openly gay serviceman to serve to no detrimental affect to unit cohesion or camaraderie? Bravery, character, and aptitude was the only thing that mattered when being a soldier the last time I checked, not sexuality. So please, take your worn out, bigoted argument elsewhere, and not in the company of decent people.
Seriously doubt that such action will "rip up the military". Fact is, present situation is endangering military proficiency and even national security by discharging translators and other key persons in intelligence - not to mention top gun pilots, under the standing policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Regulas, how will keeping desperately-needed, highly-qualified personnel in the armed services "rip up the military?" I seem to recall similar wails of apocalyptic fearmongering and bigotry when the services were integrated racially, and when women were allowed to be full-fledged members of the military, and yet look at us now. With individuals like Claudia Kennedy [three-star General] and Colin Powell [four-star General] doing outstanding jobs, it's clear that such moans were groundless: the day will come when the same is true of homosexuals, and it can't come too soon.
Openly gay service in the military will cause more problems than it will fix. Talking of degrading the readiness, seasoned military members will run for the door if this is approved.
It's funny how all of you mention that the homosexuals in the military must all be translators, not actual infantry personnel. Have any of you actually gone through basic training or boot camp? If we are so adamant about separating the men from the woman, why shouldn't the homosexuals be separated from the heterosexuals? Just as women would not men looking at them when in the racks, heterosexual men would not want homosexual men looking at them either.
As a former Naval NCO who was investigated (and threatened) by my division Chiefs because they were convinced that I'd give up men under my command who they suspected were homosexuals, this can't be repealed soon enough.
Two of my thirty-five guys were gay, and every one of the rest knew it, as did my Lieutenant . They were two of the best sailors in my crew, and they did their jobs with pride and professionalism. Thank you, Lt. "F" and the rest of you guys who did the right thing.
"Witch hunts" and discharging good men and women who haven't committed a crime or violated the UCMJ harms morale more than the presence of these troops.
Bullnoogies! Hey Len, ending DADT will NOT make us safer. That D,C, 2nd lui linguist dude proved that DADT is great in weeding out those like him, especially military officers who put self before country. He recently made the TV rounds essentially boasting that he "used" us taxpayers to get a free 4-year college education at West Point then he copped out on his promise to serve. That is, he purposely broke a law (Title 10 of the US Code) that he knew would get him out. He also turned his back to his troops when he copped out and there were no bullets flying over his head. Is that honorable? He brought shame on West Point and all, repeat ALL, citizens of United States of America by essentially abandoning his post in a time of war. His was a cowardly way out. DADT is good for flushing out his kind. Same goes for that female officer who decided to break the law then have the balls to ask President Obama to forgive her crime.
President Obama, please leave the DADT issue for the next administration eight years from now.
The fact that sexual orientation is an issue supports the fact that they should not be allowed to serve. They are clearly not focused on why they signed up to serve which had nothing to do with their sexual orientation, and to constantly compare being gay or a lesbian with being black or to slavery is ridiculous (you’re not being segregated or being forced to work for free by your master). This discussion alone is a threat to our national security. I'm sure the armed forces of countries around the world are viewing us as a joke you enlist to serve and protect your country not to fight amongst each other on being able to announce your sexual orientation to the enemy.
Does anyone else think it is odd that we are all equating homosexuals to Arabic speakers?
It is the party of Democrats not Democratics just as it's the party of Republicans.
Hense, Democrat Party and Republican Party. Where does Democratic Party fit in? Both are democratic (small d).
I'm going in to the Marine Corps soon and I can't imagine anything less important to me than if my fellow Marines like ladies or dudes. Hell I don't care if they want to spend their spare time with farm animals if they can hold a rifle and are willing to step up to the plate for the USA
Even the very conservative Barry Goldwater (for those of us old enough to remember him) said that you don't have to be straight to shoot straight.
Here we are with our military doing multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and the military wants to discharge gays.
That makes as much sense as shooting yourself in the foot to improve your ability to walk.
Another day in the life of homophobic America.
Sigh.
This is a bad idea! And I believe it to be proposed by Democrats seeking to gain a few votes for themselves come election time. It is obvious that they have not served in the military, that they have are listening to a homosexual community bent on securing a more open opportunities for exploiting its lifestyle, and that they are not listening to the majority of the men and women who are serving in the armed forces. In more than thirty-years of military and civil service duty, I never, to my knowledge, knew an armed forces person --male or female, commissioned or non-commissioned-- who wanted to servie with an openly homosexual person. A Navy/Air Force Vet.
I think it is worth mentioning that the US service men and women serve with openly gay and lesbians from many other countries and there is no problems with cohesion.
Unseen
I sat in the front of the bus
Unseen, Silent,
Declaring not Nothing changed.
Seen
She refused to remove herself,
And removed the law.
Obama
Be seen.
Everty
if all it takes to tear apart our military is the presence of homosexuals we've got a pretty terrible and bigoted military
Talk is cheap. I want to see action.
Most other civilized countries (Canada, UK, France,Germany) let gay people serve and they serve without incidents. This is a ridiculous waste of thinking power given the problems in this country. It never should have been put in place in the beginning.
All it takes for you to get boot for being a homosexual is for someone to see you leave a gay bar. You did not proclaim yourself, you did not tell any one, you just left a gay bar and you get the boot. That my friends, is crap.
To the "military man" who doesn't want to be looked at by a homosexual, I feel sorry for and your insecurity. You are afraid you would not be able to handle sexual harassment if a gay man even found you attractive enough to make a pass. Yet, I bet you have dished out your share of sexual harassment to women.
I spent twenty years in the military and can assure you all that allowing gays to serve openly will not have a negative impact on unit cohesion. It is a simple matter of leadership. We have successfully integrated blacks, we have successfully integrated women, and now we can successfully integrate gays.
Remember President Truman! He segrated the Armed Forces. He put blacks and whites military together. They told him that this would destroy the military. It didn't and look at the service now. Also that white and black men and/or women would not be able to shower and share same barracks. They work side by side. So why waste the tax payers tax money on discharges for the LGBT community personnel. If you don't have any secrets such as being gay, there would not be any problems in the military.
I think that gays have as much right to serve in the military as hetrosexuals. Many gays in this country are very good Patriots. I don't think our military minds. Come on, you can't tell me that homosexuals did not fight in World War I, World War II as well as Viet Nam. Our military is the best and many of our soldiers are gay.
How about a list or a link to see the 77 members? Don't blogs and the internet provide nearly unlimited opportunities for information that the old newspaper didn't? Come on Boston Globe, get smarter.
If Straight White men do not wish to serve their country in terms of the military of the United States, believe it or not: there are plenty of patriotic Blacks, Latinos, Asians, women and gays more than willing to take their place.
The people who should be discharged from the military are the many ex-convicts, drug addicts and white supremacists who have been admitted into an all volunteer (read mercenary Hessian) army.
It is time for the President and Congress to show some real backbone and bring back the draft which will increase the stake that all Americans should have when determining in what military conflicts this country will engage.
@Sonney Rey: In my opinion that guy is genius for what he did. I only wish i had done the same thing. Kinda what you straighties should get anyway! I as a gay man pay taxes to subsidize the education of Straight cadets that are allowed to be straight and open about it. I'm overwhelmed with joy to know that atleast some of my tax dollars went to educate someone from my own community. And why would you make him out to be a coward for not following through on service when you dont want him protecting you in the first place. What a hypocrit!
Can ANYONE explain WHY there were virtually NO problems whatsoever when about a dozen or so other countries (including ISREAL which obviously has serious military threats ever-present) legally integrated gays into their own military branches/troops ???
I DIDN'T THINK SO !
As ALL of those countries experienced a basically seamless transition including very little or no negitive reaction FROM their active duty PEERS at their respective transitional times to the present day !!! COUNTRIES like the U.K., Germany, CANA